Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the single in-flight job limit shared with maps jobs and the 409 error when busy. It also clarifies the input acceptance format (URLs, short links, business_id). It does not mention return value or authentication, but the concurrency behavior is a significant operational detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by accepted input formats and a key concurrency caveat. Every clause contributes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the purpose and a key constraint, but it does not explain what the job returns or how to retrieve results, which is especially important given there is no output schema. The agent would benefit from a note about using gmaps_get_reviews_results after creation, but the sibling tools and the word 'job' imply that follow-up.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes the 'place' parameter exhaustively, detailing accepted formats (Maps URL, short links, business_id). The description reiterates the same formats without adding new meaning. The 'exactly one place' constraint is a behavioral note, not parameter semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a Google Maps reviews scrape job and specifies it is for exactly one place. This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like gmaps_create_photos_job, which target photos, and gmaps_create_job, which is generic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context that this is for reviews and that it shares a single in-flight job limit with other maps jobs, warning of a 409 error when busy. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as gmaps_create_photos_job, relying on the name and implicit purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.